1. ' Listed application under section 152, C.P.C. Has been filed by the defendant, Civil Aviation Authority, seeking correction of typographical mistake as to date of applicability of the operative part of the order recorded as 1st July, 2001 instead of 1st June, 2001 as announced orally.
2. ' Briefly recapitulating facts of the case as may be necessary for disposal of instant application are that the plaintiff earned a license to collect cargo throughout charges. It so happened that before the expiry of three years licence period same was revoked, giving cause for the present suit.
3. ' During hearing of stay application (C.M.A. 4719 of 2001) parties continued negotiations and exchanged proposals. In the wake of such proceeding, plaintiff placed on record certain documents one of such documents being approval of proposal, dated 7-5-2001 setting out terms of settlement. The date of effectuating such term was set out as 15-6-2001 in letter, dated 9-5-2001.
4. It appeared that dispute as to the date effecting such terms arose, subsequently letter, dated 9-5- 2001 fixing date as 15-6-2001 was withdrawn due to some technical reasons".
5. ' In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case and in consideration of the fact that the approval of proposal, dated 7-5-2001 was in consonance with tender notice vide order, dated 1st June, 2001, plaintiff was allowed to act in accordance with terms and conditions set out therein till such time fresh tender was finalized.
6. ' The dispute as to fixation of date for effecting such terms and condition was also sought to be resolved by fixing 1st June 2001. It appears that owing to typographical error instead of "June" July was typed in term No,1 to para 20, appearing at typed page 15 of the order, dated 1-6-2001, necessitating listed application.
7. ' Mr. Mushtaq Memon learned counsel for the defendant states that typographic& error as to date was noticed on 18-1-2001, when he obtained the certified copy of the order. It is stated at bar that he had personally informed and explained to Mr. Irfan Memon, Associate of the plaintiff's counsel on the very day of announcement of orders, the purport and implication of the order and its effective date as announced orally by this Court.
8. ' He further argued that for all practical purpose, effective date was set out as 15-6-2001 which was considered prejudicial to the Authority therefore, it was later withdrawn.
9. ' Mr. Rashid A. Razvi, learned counsel seriously contested the application he contended that order, dated 1-6-2001 has been impugned in appeal, application is in fact, seeking review of the order which is not permissible. He contended that no date effecting the approval, dated 7-5-2001 was announced orally. It was further argued that it is written order that holds the field and not the oral pronouncement. It was further argued that revised licence fee was payable subject to collection of throughput charges at IATA approved rate and since date for collection of such charges was fixed as 1st July, 2001. They are bound by written order he has placed reliance on Ishtiaq Ahmed v.
10. Bakhshaya 1996 SCMR 420 in support of his contention that order sought to be corrected was passed after due application of mind and correction now desired by the defendant will require application of judicial mind which is not the intent of section 152, C.P.C. He further relied upon case reported as Ghulam Rasul v. Additional District Judge PLD 1982 Lahore 303 and Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Continental Engineers Ltd. PLD 1992 Lahore 261.
11. ' Much emphasis was laid by Mr.Rashid A. Razvi, learned counsel for the plaintiff that file remained under consideration for many days in chambers and orders were sent after proper consideration therefore, application merits dismissal.
12. ' Having considered the arguments and perused the record. Since the matter is of recent past facts have not yet faded out from my mind.
13. ' The matter Was heard on 18-5-2001, 10-5-2001, 15-5-2001 and lastly on 17-5-2001. It was fixed for orders on 1-6-2001 being Friday, in the later part of the day in presence of Mr. Mushtaq Memon, learned counsel for the defendant and representative of defendant. Mr. Irfan Memon. Associate of plaintiff's counsel and some representative of plaintiff, order disposing of application was announced orally in open Court, to the effect that, plaintiff will pay licence fee in the sum of Rs,80,00,000.00 per month with effect from 1st June, 2001 in terms of approval of proposal, dated 7- 5-2001 and the defendant will be at liberty to invite fresh tenders with option to the plaintiff to match the highest offer within 10 days from the opening of tender.
14. ' Since typed order contained certain typing mistakes, it was corrected on the following day i,e, Saturday, 3rd June being Sunday, file was sent to branch on 4th June, 2001, and inadvertently the date mentioned as 1st July, 2001 in term No,1, para. 20, appearing at typed page 15 of the order, dated 1-6-2001 on account of accidental slip was left out from being corrected, which error was noticed when instant application was placed before me.
15. There can be no cavil to the proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that error which requires judicious application of mind cannot be corrected under section 152, C.P.C. And such error in order or judgment can only be corrected by resorting to review or appeal as the case may be. In the instant case, in my opinion it is merely a bona fide typographical error and accidental slip requiring no application of mind. Whenever any typographical error or mistake arises from any accidental slip or omission on the part of the Court and such mistake or error comes to the notice of the Court, same may be corrected either by the Court on its own motion or on the application of any party. In the instant case defendant noted the error resorted to seek correction promptly by moving to this Court which procedure is in accordance with section 152, C.P.C.
16. ' In the instant case, in terms of orders, dated 1-6-2001, parties were bound by the terms and conditions set out in approval of proposal, dated 7-5-2001 reproduced in para. 7 of the order with only variation as to the effective date which was w,e,f, 1st June 2001, but on account of clerical/typographical error date was typed as 1st July, 2001 which remained unnoticed, while signing the order on account of bona fide accidental slip.
17. ' Contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that, plaintiff could only be made liable to bear financial implication provided they are authorized to collect throughput charges at IATA rate.
18. Arguments seem to be attractive, but when examined .In the light of pleadings are exposed to nothing but, fallacy: In para 6 of the plaint it is admitted by the plaintiff that: "That the plaintiff is collecting cargo throughput charges at the Quaid-e- Azam International Airport (Q.I.A.P) since 3-7-2000 strictly in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid contract (licence agreement and strictly according to the provisions of IATA Rules/rate and Aviation Regulations...."
19. ' Such stand was retreated in para. 13 of the rejoinder to the stay application and much emphasis was laid cn such fact, in last 3 lines it was asserted: "Plaintiff has been authorized to collect as per tact rate which are IATA approved. In fact the actual and full freight charges are the one and same."
20. Along with rejoinder to stay application plaintiff also placed on record copies of TACT Rates and relevant pages of the IATA Tariff to demonstrate that there is no difference in the two.
21. ' In the light of such admission made in the plaint and reaffirmed in rejoinder it does not lie in the mouth of the plaintiff to assert that they aze not bound to pay licence fee as per orders, dated 1-6- 2001 in terms of approval of proposal, dated 7-5-2001 w,e,f, 1-6-2001 unless authorized to collect throughput charges on IATA rate. On the own showing of the plaintiff as stated above, they are collecting throughput charges at IATA rates. According I do not see any adverse financial implication as portrayed by Mr. Rashid A. Rizvi.
22. ' As far as reliance on the case of Ishtiaq Ahmed (supra) .Is concerned, facts are distinguishable and are not applicable to this case. In that case, time to deposit pre-emption money fixed by the trial Court was not extended by the Appellate Court while dismissing appeal, such lapse was attempted to be overcome by moving ander section 152, C.P.0 after dismissal of execution application. In the instant case error was noted on 18-6-2001 when certified copy was obtained by the defendant and application under section 152, C.P.C. Was made on very next date without delay.
23. The proposition that judicial pronouncements once signed are final and binding on parties and same cannot be altered or added subsequently is subject to two exceptions one being, review other being section 152, C.P.C. As set out in Order 20 Rule 3, C.P.C.
24. ' In the case reported as Government of Sindh v. Abdul Rehman 1997 MLD 2847, where trial Court supplemented the period within which decree was to be satisfied, on being challenged at page 2854 it was held: "In my view the amendment made by the Additional District Judge is of such a nature that it does not in any manner touch the merit and legal question decided by the Court."
25. ' In this case another distinguishing feature is that operative part of the order was announced orally on 1-6-2001 in presence of representatives of both the parties giving out effective date as 1-6-2001.
26. Under Rule 257 of the Sindh Chief Court Rules, this Court is empowered to make oral pronouncement provided transcript of such pronouncement is prepared, corrected and signed by the Judge, which in fact was done in this case but, in the written judgment due to accidental slip wrong date was typed, which was at variance with oral pronouncement, whenever such accidental slip ur error is brought to the notice of the Court such slip or error is to be corrected in order to maintain the sanctity of the Court proceedings. In the case of Bexshim Corporation v. Privatization Commission PLD 1997 Kar. 36 this Court observed and rightly so at page 40: "No doubt the party has suffered great hardship, but in my considered view great sanctity is attached to an oral order pronounced by the learned Judge in open Court, which fact is admitted by all the counsel appearing for the plaintiff and for the defendant."
27. ' In the light of above discussion I allow the application. The date mentioned in Direction No,1 to para. 20 appearing at typed page 15 of the order, dated 1-6-2001 accordingly stand corrected and deem to be read as 1st June, 2001 instead of 1st July, 2001 as wrongly recorded in the order.